[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Arles

Question for you guys. When the did the goal change from:

"I'd love to have an above average QB every year"
to
"I'd love to have a talented, inexperience QB on a rookie deal!"

Look at the Bears (Mitch), Browns (Baker), Jets (Darnold), Bills (Allen), Bucs (Jameis), Titans (Mariota), Ravens (Carr), Redskins (Haskins) and Broncos (Lynch) - all those teams had the great advantage of building their roster around a rookie QB. But, guess what, they all stunk. Even the better situations in guys like Watson, Dak and Goff - they still weren't ready in their early big games and cost their team when they first played (because they were still raw). I get the value in a situation like Mahomes, Lamar or Wilson when he was drafted, but that's like banking on getting Tom Brady in the 6th round - those guys aren't normal. Plus, all these teams had high priced guys when they drafted in Smith, Flacco and Matt Flynn. So, it's not like they saved a ton at first.

It just seems to me that it is better try to get your starter when you current good QB still has a few years left than to panic and draft the best rookie you can find once he is done. I know you lose the "cheap rookie contract", but isn't it better to have a higher chance at a good QB? By handpicking the guy you want when you don't need him and letting him groom for 1-2 years, you set yourself up for a much better chance at a future good QB than drafting Dwayne Haskins, Paxton Lynch or Josh Rosen once your main guy is gone because they are the best for that moment.

It is probably the smart way, but NFL teams like the big splash of a top pick QB. My choice would always be to groom the successor.